Talk:Spells
Duplicate sections The Arcane and Divine spells sections make this article heavily redundant. Every spell is now listed twice. I suggest getting rid of the Arcane Spells section and to highlight the Divine spells in the list a different color so you can easily see which ones require favor from the gods. I just don't know how to do that; there are no color options in the visual editor. LTK 70 16:47, May 16, 2012 (UTC) : I agree, the separate Arcane section is redundant and unnecessary. The All spells and Divine spells have their useful purpose and should be kept. A breakdown into categories by function (All spells currently), and a separate one by gods (Divine spells currently) is all there is needed. : Highlighting divine spells in the global list is also a good idea. Until we don't use coloring, there are other possible ways to achieve this: bold or italic styles in the name of spell for example. : I am hereby asking for permission to remove the Arcane spells section and make some kind of highlighting of the divine spells (I was thinking of italic font for now, but I'll see what other means I can find and find better), Or reasons why these changes shouldn't be made. Azalgorm 16:16, May 20, 2012 (UTC) All spells categories I suggest having separate subsections by function in the All spells section - eliminating the merged sections in the process. My proposal for sections/categorization is the following: #Combat summon #Special summon #Damage #Healing #Unit blessing #Unit bane #City blessing #City bane #Mage bane #Dispel #other *I didn't include a Mage blessing category because afaik. Agile Mind is the only spell of that kind, so I think it can go into the other category. *Special summons category would be for spells that spawn a unit for no direct combat - like Runes, And see my first suggestion below... Some further suggestions: *I was thinking of including the resurrect spells in Special summons category - because they too spawn a unit, but of course its a special case as its not a brand new unit and it has a fixed spawn point. *Spells that deal minor damage and apply a bane, where the bane itself is the important part of the effect (like Ice Trap) should go into the Unit bane category. So I'm asking for permission to apply these changes. Azalgorm 15:34, May 20, 2012 (UTC) : The reason that these spells are grouped this way is that the game uses the same categories. You could argue that they could have done a better job there themselves, but as it is now, I think it's smartest to keep the two relatively consistent. Eleven spell categories may make it a bit more organized, but also a lot more cluttered. I'd say that adding a Dispel subcategory to Other makes sense, but that's about it. The rest are pretty self-evident. LTK 70 17:58, May 20, 2012 (UTC) ::: I'd say the question is what is the purpose of the categorization in the game, and on the Wiki. In game those groups are a simple way to help the player handle that otherwise unordered, long list of known spells (later game). Should the goal be the same here too, or to organize the information in useful ways? I think the two serve different purposes and the former doesn't have to be necessarily forced on the latter. On the other hand, someone comes here to get information on a spell one encounters during a playthrouh, and categories are meaningless in this regard. So maybe my approach would be just neater and more logical than any more useful. ::: I disagree more categories unconditionally increase clutter. A viewer is always looking at a list of spells at a given time, what is before or after that, doesn't interfere with that. If someone wants to look at the whole picture, than a flowing list of all spells together isn't any more convenient to handle and comprehend than a split up one. (If I look at it from your stated point of view, then my last suggestion would even benefit reducing this kind of clutter. If more, smaller categories are worse than less, longer ones, migrating the functionally bane behaving damage spells into the Bane category would go just the right direction as that category is taking up space with just two spells in it currently. But of course this would break mirroring the in-game grouping.) ::: Well, I stop my (offline) work on it then for now, and wait for more opinions - and any request for it at all - to "flow in". Azalgorm 19:04, May 20, 2012 (UTC) Spell combos I think Spell combos - being relevant enough - should be a main section (after the spell lists - currently after Divine spells) on this page, and not a separate page. Links to it can be modified to point directly to the section on Spells page, so those links still lead to the relevant information, not just to the top of the Spells page. Azalgorm 15:43, May 20, 2012 (UTC) Seeing as the Spells page is already pretty big, I would keep the Spell combos page separate. But put a link at the top of the Spells page. I like your other ideas though, but I'm not that much involved with the Spells page, so someone more involved should give his opinion to this too. - Ebag-alpha 17:33, May 20, 2012 (UTC) Well, that solution would do about just as well, and is absolutely the minimum that should be done. I go for it and implement it in an elementary fashion. Azalgorm 19:10, May 20, 2012 (UTC) Stacking Spell Effects I know you can have multipe different spells on you, but can I cast the same one several times for cumulative effects? (agile mind) 05:58, May 22, 2012 (UTC) : According to a forum user, yes, though I haven't tried it myself. I also don't think this is intentional. LTK 70 22:14, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Terraforming So did anyone notice the terraforming spells with "Return of the Elves?" So far, I found a water to plains spell (1 turn to research at the start, 5 mana to cast), converts AoE water to plains, and a mountain to hills spells with the same costs. 14:49, August 5, 2012 (UTC) Wow, where did you find them? That's cool as hell. Uncleaner 17:25, August 5, 2012 (UTC) Hm it seems it's not in the Steam DLC that I bought. My friend wanted to test the game and he downloaded a russian torrent this morning, I went back to his place and got the screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/QpOyS.jpg The spell icons are missing and the text is not normalized, so maybe he got himself a leaked version and these spells got cut on release, or are intended for a latter dlc. edit: I messed around some more and it seems there is an AoE and a single-tile version of the spells I mentioned above. The 5 Research point and 5 mana point costs seem to be provisional, and are likely to be much higher on release, as the spells are pretty overpowered. A non researchable spell Hi I got a spell called "pet of the ancients" from a monster nest (I think it was a dragon nest) its like a crazy version of "Armageddon" spell. its an AOE of two hexes, and does 90 elemntal damage. it costs somthing like 750 mana. Maybe there are more non researchable spells, I didn't see anything about them, only that they were added on patch 1.4. I don't really know how to edit the spell table, so I am just writing it here. TY Research progression Hello, I was wondering if there was a set progression tree for spell research? It seems to be mostly random to me, with some influence of your chosen race as to the probability of available spells. Thanks Stormageddon6 (talk) 17:08, August 3, 2016 (UTC)